It's usually accompanied by lashing of Gentleman's Relish.
Advertisement
by Fartsniffage » Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:31 pm
by Agarntrop » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:07 pm
by Gravlen » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:08 pm
Hirota wrote:Court case that Vass and Fartsniffage were talking about at the end of the last thread went nowhere.
Analysis and decision
[21]The issues which the court must address at this stageare (i) whether the petitionerhasa prima facie case and (ii) where the balance of convenience lies.
[22]In my opinion, the petitioner doesnot have a prima facie case. In the first place, the petition is of very doubtful competency. The orders sought would unquestionably interfere to a major extent with the proposed proceedings in Parliament. Suspension of the draft withdrawal agreement would mean that the motion for its approval could not realistically or properly go ahead as planned. I cannot see that it would be right for Parliament to be invited to consider a draft treaty which the court had suspended on the basis that it was unlawful. It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that the courts should not intrude on the legitimate affairs and processes of Parliament. I consider that it should be left to Parliament to proceed in relation to the draft withdrawal agreement in the manner and according to the procedures that Parliament considers most appropriate in the circumstances.
[23]Secondly, I consider that the petitioner’s legal argument as to the incompatibility of the draft withdrawal agreement with section 55 of the 2018 Act is at best a weak one. The starting point, in my opinion, is the clear declaration in article 4 of the draft Protocol. That statement is closely aligned with the definition of a “customs territory” contained in Article XXIV of GATT. The petitioner has placed nothing before the court by way of evidence, averment or oral submission to show that in future Northern Ireland’s trading and customs arrangements will not qualify and fall to be treated as amounting to a “customs territory” in the manner envisaged in the draft Protocol. The clear intention underlying the draft Protocol is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom. There is nothing to show that this will not play out as intended and work in a satisfactory manner. The fact that there will also be trade between Northern Ireland and the EU on which customs duties shall be payable does not necessarily infer that Northern Ireland cannot at the same time be part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom. A substantial part of Northern Ireland’s trade will still be with Great Britain and will not be subject to customs duties.
[24]Thirdly, the balance of convenience, in my view, strongly points towards it being right for the court to decline to grant the interim orders sought. The petitioner has not convinced me that there is any genuine urgency such as to justify the granting of interim orders. Mr O’Neill suggested that even if orders were granted, matters could nonetheless proceed in Parliament as currently planned, but Parliament would be able to have regard to the court’s view on the legality of the draft withdrawal agreement. This, to my mind, makes little sense. It is not for the court to provide Parliament with some kind of advance advisory guidance.
[25]Fourthly, the petitioner’s approach fails to take account of the fact that the withdrawal agreement is at present still at the stage of being merely a draft instrument. It requires to be ratified, both at UK and EU levels. These procedures should be allowed to be followed through in line with the appropriate processes in the UK Parliament and elsewhere. It would be quite wrong and contrary to basic constitutional principles for the court to interfere with them in the way that the petitioner hasproposed.
[26]For all these reasons, I conclude that the petitioner’s applications for interim orders are misconceived and unjustified. They have no or at best a weak prima facie case. The balance of convenience comes down firmly on the side of refusing to make the orders. I shall accordingly refuse the petitioner’s motion insofar as it seeks interim orders.
by Vassenor » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:10 pm
by Dooom35796821595 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:51 pm
Vassenor wrote:And there I was thinking the courts were all packed with secret remainers looking for any excuse to derail Brexit.
YOU LIED TO ME DAILY MAIL.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:45 pm
Eastfield Lodge wrote:Loving the support for Burning Everything right now. GVH would be proud.
I'm just bored by the proceedings at this point and want a resolution. Not that there will be one.
by Fartsniffage » Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:46 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Eastfield Lodge wrote:Loving the support for Burning Everything right now. GVH would be proud.
I'm just bored by the proceedings at this point and want a resolution. Not that there will be one.
He supports the deal at present, though would prefer a no deal. Would also prefer this hangover to go away, but some things are very unlikely in the near future.
by Gormwood » Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:50 pm
by Samudera Darussalam » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:07 pm
Vassenor wrote:And there I was thinking the courts were all packed with secret remainers looking for any excuse to derail Brexit.
YOU LIED TO ME DAILY MAIL.
by Pasong Tirad » Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:09 pm
by Kowani » Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:28 pm
by Shamhnan Insir » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:20 am
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:44 am
by Marxist Germany » Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:39 am
by The Free Joy State » Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:45 am
Marxist Germany wrote:So far Season 3 of Brexit has been fantastic. I expect the show to get some Oscars this year.
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:39 am
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:48 am
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:51 am
by Souseiseki » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:53 am
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:54 am
Souseiseki wrote:has boris won literally a single vote in the commons at this point?
by Vassenor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:57 am
by Ifreann » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:59 am
Souseiseki wrote:has boris won literally a single vote in the commons at this point?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Duvniask, Ethel mermania, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Kannap, Kaumudeen, Kerwa, Kreushia, Three Galaxies, Uiiop, Zurkerx
Advertisement